People v. Stechly
| Citation | 870 N.E.2d 333,225 Ill.2d 246 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 97544.,97544. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Robert STECHLY, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Adrienne N. River, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellant.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (Linda D. Woloshin, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, James E. Fitzgerald, Veronica Calderon Malavia, Annette N. Collins and Susan R. Schierl Sullivan, Assistant Sate's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Following a stipulated bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant Robert Stechly was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 1998)), criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 1998)), and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16(c)(1)(i) (West 1998)). Defendant's convictions arose from an incident in December 1998 involving M.M., the five-year-old daughter of defendant's girlfriend. As a result of the convictions, the circuit court sentenced defendant to six years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in admitting the child's statements pursuant to the hearsay exception for sexual abuse victims under the age of 13 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1998)), and in concluding that the child was unavailable to testify at trial. The appellate court affirmed (No. 1-01-2869 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)), and defendant petitioned for leave to appeal to this court. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), which held that the testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who is absent from trial may not be admitted against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Defendant filed a supplemental petition for leave to appeal in which he cited Crawford. We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal. 210 Ill.2d R. 315.
In 1999, defendant was indicted on charges of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 1998)), criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 1998)), and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16(c)(1)(i) (West 1998)). According to the indictment, the charges stemmed from an incident that occurred on or about December 20, 1998.
Prior to trial, the State requested a hearing to determine whether the victim's hearsay statements were sufficiently reliable to be admitted under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this hearing, the State offered the testimony of three recipients of the child's hearsay statements. Joan G., the child's mother, testified that, on January 13, 1999, M.M.'s babysitter, Brenda Galete, came to Joan's place of employment and told Joan that they needed to take the child to the hospital. Brenda did not tell Joan what happened, and Joan did not know why they were going to the hospital. Joan went with Brenda, and sat next to M.M. in the backseat of Brenda's car. During the ride to the hospital, Joan asked M.M. what was wrong, and M.M. described an incident of sexual abuse by "Bob." M.M. also said "Bob" warned her that if she told her mother about the abuse, he would "hurt" M.M. Joan understood "Bob" to be defendant, who at the time lived in Joan's apartment building in Alsip, Illinois, and was involved with Joan in a relationship. According to Joan, on a Monday about two weeks before Christmas 1998, defendant babysat M.M. in his apartment while Joan was at work. Subsequently, Joan noticed that her daughter was "acting awful strange" and "acting peculiar." For example, around Christmastime, when Joan suggested that she and M.M. go to defendant's apartment to visit, M.M. "got very upset" and said she did not want to go there. Joan suspected that either defendant or the child's father had done something sexual to M.M. About December 21, 1998, Joan confronted defendant with her suspicions, but he denied doing anything to M.M.
Upon arriving at Christ Hospital, Joan and M.M. went to the emergency room. While they were there, Ann Grote, a clinical specialist in charge of the hospital's child-abuse team, came to the emergency room and spoke with Joan. Grote, a registered nurse, testified at the reliability hearing that, following her conversation with Joan, she decided to interview M.M. According to Grote, the child's mother told her that the perpetrator was "the babysitter," a man with whom Joan was involved in a relationship. Grote took M.M. to her office in Hope Children's Hospital, which adjoined Christ Hospital, and interviewed the child in a playroom that was connected to Grote's office. Grote testified that the child described an incident of sexual abuse by "Bob." The details were essentially the same as those recounted by Joan in her testimony. According to Grote, M.M. said "Bob" told her not to tell about the abuse, and he warned M.M. that he "would be mad" if she told her mother. After the interview, Grote returned M.M. to the emergency room for an examination. Grote also spoke to Joan, telling her that a report would be filed and that Grote would contact the police department and would verify that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) had been notified.
Grote testified further that the next day, January 14, 1999, she spoke to Investigator Michael Fogarty of the Alsip police department and arranged for a second interview with M.M. at about 3 p.m. that day. The interview took place in the same playroom, which was equipped with a microphone and was connected to a second room by a one-way mirror. In the second room were Investigator Fogarty and an assistant State's Attorney. Grote began the interview with M.M. by asking the child if she could remember why she had come to the hospital the previous day. M.M. answered that "it was because of what Bob had done to her." According to Grote, M.M. then related essentially the same incident that she had described the day before.
Also testifying at the reliability hearing was Perry Yates, a social worker at the school where M.M. attended kindergarten. At about 8:30 a.m. on January 14, 1999— the date of Grote's second interview with M.M.—Yates received a telephone call at his office from M.M.'s mother, who gave him "some information." Yates then asked Joan if he could speak to M.M. individually, and Joan said "that would be fine." In his testimony at the hearing, Yates explained his reason for asking to speak with M.M. "The information that the mother had disclosed put me in a position where I had to make a mandated report [to DCFS]." Yates had a "legal obligation to check it out." Yates began the interview with M.M. by asking her what she could tell him about Robert Stechly. M.M. responded by describing an incident of sexual abuse, the details of which were similar to those recounted by Joan and Grote. Yates stated:
With regard to when the alleged incident occurred, M.M. told Yates that it happened "before Santa Claus came." On cross-examination, Yates conceded that, while he had mentioned the name "Robert Stechly" in his initial question to M.M., she did not mention defendant by name during the interview.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found that "the time, content, and circumstances" of the hearsay statements "provide sufficient safeguards of reliability to be admissible." Pursuant to section 115-10(b)(2), the court held that the statements "shall be admissible contingent upon one of two things occurring: [e]ither the child testifying at trial, or a judicial determination of unavailability, and there is corroborative evidence of the act" that was the subject of the statements.
The State filed a motion in limine seeking a judicial determination regarding the victim's availability to testify. The sole witness at the hearing on this motion was Nancy Machonkin, a clinical child psychologist. Machonkin testified that she was hired by the victim's father in March 1999 to evaluate M.M. to determine what impact the alleged abuse had on the child and the type of treatment M.M. might need. Machonkin met with M.M. five times over a monthlong period in the spring of 1999 and, after these five sessions, concluded that there was no need for treatment. Machonkin met with M.M. again in October 2000, this time in anticipation of M.M.'s possibly testifying. M.M.'s father told Machonkin that there was a possibility that the State might require M.M. to testify, and he wanted Machonkin to determine what impact that might have on the child. In her testimony at the availability hearing, Machonkin stated that in all the sessions she had with M.M., Machonkin was never able to persuade M.M. to talk about the sexual abuse allegations. In the spring 1999 sessions, each time Machonkin tried to broach the alleged abuse, M.M. would state: M.M. gave a similar response in the October 2000 session when Machonkin suggested the possibility of testifying in court regarding the alleged abuse. M.M. stated:
Machonkin testified further that, if M.M. were forced to testify, she would likely experience trauma symptoms such as anxiety, sleep disturbance, and difficulties in concentrating and paying attention. According to Machonkin, it would not be in the child's best...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Maley
...Court's decision in Davis requires a case-by-case approach. See Davis, 126 S.Ct. at 2277–78 ; see also People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246, 312 Ill.Dec. 268, 870 N.E.2d 333, 363 (2007) ( Crawford and Davis make clear that determining whether statement is testimonial must be made on a case-by-......
-
State v. Miller
...and “the interview was geared toward gathering evidence rather than providing medical treatment”); People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246, 251–52, 299–300, 312 Ill.Dec. 268, 870 N.E.2d 333 (2007) (child victim's statements to a clinical specialist with the hospital's child sexual abuse team were......
-
State v. Sanchez
...it determined that the above-quoted language from Davis "strongly connotes a requirement of intent." 225 Ill.2d 246, 312 Ill.Dec. 268, 285-89, 870 N.E.2d 333, 350-53 (2007) (plurality). The Stechly court declined to apply the forfeiture doctrine to a sexual abuse case, absent evidence showi......
-
State v. Siler
...(Fla.App.2007), 946 So.2d 1270 (statements made by child of unknown age to "Child Protection Team" nurse); People v. Stechly (2007), 225 Ill.2d 246, 312 Ill. Dec. 268, 870 N.E.2d 333 (five-year-old's statements to child-sex-abuse personnel); State v. Henderson (Kan.2007), 160 P.3d 776 (thre......
-
Hearsay
...124 S Ct 1354 (2004); Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana , 547 US 813, 165 L Ed 2d 224, 126 S Ct 2266 (2006); People v. Stechly , 225 Ill 2d 246, 870 NE2d 333 (2007); People v. Sutton , 233 Ill 2d 89, 908 NE2d 50 (2009). In Crawford , the United States Supreme Court held that testimo......
-
Table of Cases
...NE2d 350 (1985), §18:50 People v. Starnes , 374 Ill App 3d 132, 869 NE2d 834 (2007), §19:50 Illinois Objections A-576 People v. Stechly , 225 Ill 2d 246, 870 NE2d 333 (2007), §§1:80, 1:160, 6:10, 6:200 People v. Stewart , 105 Ill 2d 22, 473 NE 2d 840 (1984), §14:80 People v. Stewart , 343 I......
-
Procedures for Objections & Motions
...as agents of law enforcement and the admission of the statements into evidence were held not to be harmless error. People v. Stechly , 225 Ill 2d 246, 870 NE2d 333 (2007). §1:90 Bases for Objecting The bases for objecting to preserve the record for appeal include: • Improper exercise of per......
-
Crawford at its limits: hearsay and forfeiture in child abuse cases.
...proof of intent to prevent the witness from testifying. E.g., People v. Moreno, 160 P.3d 242, 247 (Colo. 2007); People v. Stechly, 870 N.E.2d 333, 353 (Ill. 2007); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 830 N.E.2d 158, 170 (Mass. 2005); State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Minn. 2004); State v. Romero, ......